John 9:5. Excellent choice. Is this "lux" the same "lux" of Genesis 1:3?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I apologize if I worded it poorly in my last post, but I can't really see any problems with it.

The problem with your example is that Science works to come to a conclusion based on facts, and not the other way around. No-one can prove or disprove your example because it is not even a proper thesis to begin with. There must be supporting facts that we are able to test and observe over a period of time.

Perhaps you can read, but it seems you're unable to make a distinction between disproving the null hypothesis of a particular theory, and inability to even test a theory.

But what you guys have said consistently throughout this entire thread is a claim is valid and fact until it is proven wrong. Not my words, I disagree completely. I imagine its a creepy feeling not being able to respond without contradicting previous statements. But, if you want to say its wrong, be my guest.

Perhaps you can read, but it seems you're unable to make a distinction between disproving the null hypothesis of a particular theory, and inability to even test a theory.

But what you guys have said consistently throughout this entire thread is a claim is valid and fact until it is proven wrong. Not my words, I disagree completely. I imagine its a creepy feeling not being able to respond without contradicting previous statements. But, if you want to say its wrong, be my guest.

Kerdy,What we've been saying all along isn't wrong. It's just misunderstood. I acknowledge first and foremost that the wording may be poor, just as the wording for "theory" has been misused and poorly understood. I personally am not contradicting anything I've said before. I clarified it for you. When we say "unable to disprove", it means that the null hypothesis was tested, and it's false. "Unable to disprove" does not equate "unable to test" in scientific understanding.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 12:17:18 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.

Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.

No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.

Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.

I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.

Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.

I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)

Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophical leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.

No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.

Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.

I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)

Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophicap leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.

Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.

I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)

Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophicap leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.

Selam

We have already observed in this thread dramatic cumulative change in the short run with a population of Italian wall lizard. Taken to the long run, that would be peripatric speciation ("macroevolution") and reproductive isolation caused by extensive geographical separation from the original population. It is exactly the type of morphological change observed in that isolated population that leads to reproductive isolation again in the long run.

It is better to talk in terms of populations rather than "individual species", because, as we have observed, the dramatic morphological changes discussed above occured in an isolated POPULATION, not the entire species.

No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.

Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.

I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)

Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophicap leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.

Selam

We have already observed in this thread dramatic cumulative change in the short run with a population of Italian wall lizard. Taken to the long run, that would be peripatric speciation ("macroevolution") and reproductive isolation caused by extensive geographical separation from the original population. It is exactly the type of morphological change observed in that isolated population that leads to reproductive isolation again in the long run.

It is better to talk in terms of populations rather than "individual species", because, as we have observed, the dramatic morphological changes discussed above occured in an isolated POPULATION, not the entire species.

Jesse Jackson would be proud of you.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.Selam

"...Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."

No, evolution is "true" because it is observable and based on enormous amounts of evidence. Whoever says evolution is not directly observable is wrong; for example our understanding that bacteria actively evolve is vital to the whole field of modern medicine, and evolution has not only been observed in microorganisms: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Observable micro-evolution does not prove unoberservable macro-evolution. Observable adaptation is not evidence for common descent. That's like observing the horizon and concluding that the earth is flat.

Selam

Macroevolution is simply the cumulative effect of microevolution. If one population of Italian wall lizard develops an entirely NEW gut structure and head shape after a mere 30 years, why should we exclude the possibility that that population will eventually classify as a distinct species of lizard? Such a development seems even likely within a conceivable range of time. Now if you compare the example of the Italian wall lizard to human evolution, which has taken place over an extremely long period of time by comparison but is nevertheless thoroughly supported by fossil record and DNA, the birth of modern Homo sapiens was affected by much the same processes.

I'm not asking evolutionists to exclude the possibility, I'm simply asking them not to make the philosophical leap from possibility to established empirical fact (unless they want to call themselves "philosophical evolutionists," which would be both honest and accurate.)

Selam

So you're willing to accept as fact that dramatic changes do occur over the short term, but not that they have any cumulative effect over the long run? You don't have to make any philosophicap leap to draw that conclusion, just having experience in constructing snowmen would be sufficient.

Cummulative effect "in the long run" within individual species. Plenty of observable, empirical evidence for that, yes. To leap to the assumption of common descent from this may be philosophicaly plausible, but it is not scientifically tenable.

Selam

We have already observed in this thread dramatic cumulative change in the short run with a population of Italian wall lizard. Taken to the long run, that would be peripatric speciation ("macroevolution") and reproductive isolation caused by extensive geographical separation from the original population. It is exactly the type of morphological change observed in that isolated population that leads to reproductive isolation again in the long run.

It is better to talk in terms of populations rather than "individual species", because, as we have observed, the dramatic morphological changes discussed above occured in an isolated POPULATION, not the entire species.

The article mentions that their scenario is "hypothetical," but it's also something that has been directly observed in scientific studies with the same Drosophila fruit flies. The island lizards would be somewhere around stage 4.

I missed this as well Biro since the terms are unavoidable. Thanks. +1 for Gebre for seeing this accidental relationship.

Is that the worlds greatest dancer in your avatar? Fred Astaire and his sister, Adele?

Yes Kerdy, it is. I was in tears a couple of days ago thinking about my sister and how much I love her and appreciate her. Not too many people would recognize Adele, even though she was more famous at the time. Fred wore the ring she gave him all of his life and honed his skills as a dancer so as not to drag her down.

On the evolution front, I am starting a new in vitro evolution project.

He never said that salvation is from the Hellenes/Hellas. That's for sure.

He said better...20 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. 21 They came to Philip...with a request. “Sir...we would like to see Jesus.” 22 ...Philip...told Jesus. 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified"

You should dispute that with St. Paul, not me. I think what he says in Romans 11 is clear as daylight and cannot be misconstrued to mean what you would like it to mean.

I don't have a problem with Paul, just your misinterpretation of him. This is what I mean: As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; Romans 11:28

St. Paul saw the rejection of Christ by the majority (not all) of the Jews as a temporary grace bestowed by God to the "pet dogs", i.e. Gentiles. That's why he urges the latter not to be arrogant. Philhellenes like yourself had better heed that piece of advice.

He never said that salvation is from the Hellenes/Hellas. That's for sure.

He said better...20 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. 21 They came to Philip...with a request. “Sir...we would like to see Jesus.” 22 ...Philip...told Jesus. 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified"

In John's language this meant it was time for him to die - his ministry in the flesh to Israel had been completed, once the Gentiles were inquiring about him. "Glorification" and "exaltation" mean crucifixion for the Evangelist, not being praised by the Greeks.

St. Paul saw the rejection of Christ by the majority (not all) of the Jews as a temporary grace bestowed by God to the "pet dogs", i.e. Gentiles. That's why he urges the latter not to be arrogant. Philhellenes like yourself had better heed that piece of advice.

first, you don't have an insight into the workings of Pauls mind; Second, Paul does not ever or anywhere refer to gentiles as 'pet-dogs' "In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise..." Romans 9:8 Judaizers like yourself should heed that advice

To be Orthodox is to avoid both the extreme of Judaic phyletism and Gentile arrogance.

Thats absurd you are either a Jew or you're a Christian. You are a Gentile (Greek) and nothing you say will ever change that. However much you argue to the contrary Christianity is not Judaism. Get over it.

To be Orthodox is to avoid both the extreme of Judaic phyletism and Gentile arrogance.

Thats absurd you are either a Jew or you're a Christian. You are a Gentile (Greek) and nothing you say will ever change that. However much you argue to the contrary Christianity is not Judaism. Get over it.

I am not arguing that Christianity is Judaism any more than it is Hellenism - it is the superior synthesis of the two:

Quote

So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called "the uncircumcision" by those who are called "the circumcision"—a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. 17 So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.

The evolution debate reminds me of the debate about the media. The louder the mainstream media proclaims how objective they are, the more they reveal their bias. And the fact that they militantly attack any alternative media source discloses their liberal agenda. Similarly, the louder the evolutionists scream about how their pet theory is an empircally verifiable fact, the more they reveal how tenous it really is. And the fact that they seek to silence any competing scientific theory about the origins of life discloses the reality that they are not promoting science so much as a philosophical agenda. In the word's of Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

Well, Matthew is first because - through the genealogy - it provides the link between the Old and the New Testaments, presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel. St. Paul's Gospel starts from there, too: "the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh"; "the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1).

Mark and Luke are addressed to the Gentiles.

John is the last chronologically, but also theologically because it delves into the mystery of Christ's divinity.

(Maybe these posts which are off-topic here could be moved to one of the threads Pericles started.)

The evolution debate reminds me of the debate about the media... In the word's of Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

The parallel is deeper even than that. Commonly, creationists will cite something from science without either understanding it or bothering to get it correct. "The lady protests too much, methinks," is the correct quote.

The evolution debate reminds me of the debate about the media... In the word's of Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

The parallel is deeper even than that. Commonly, creationists will cite something from science without either understanding it or bothering to get it correct. "The lady protests too much, methinks," is the correct quote.

I think I need to coin a "Godwin's Law" of the evolution debate, which would describe the law that whenever evolutionists are challenged they immediately invoke the "you just don't understand science" card.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

I think I need to coin a "Godwin's Law" of the evolution debate, which would describe the law that whenever evolutionists are challenged they immediately invoke the "you just don't understand science" card.

Selam

Maybe there is something to that oft-invoked card.

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

The evolution debate reminds me of the debate about the media... In the word's of Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude: "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

The parallel is deeper even than that. Commonly, creationists will cite something from science without either understanding it or bothering to get it correct. "The lady protests too much, methinks," is the correct quote.

I think I need to coin a "Godwin's Law" of the evolution debate, which would describe the law that whenever evolutionists are challenged they immediately invoke the "you just don't understand science" card.

Selam

As opposed to the "this is a demonic philosophy, not science" card?

I think before judging what evolutionists do, let's remove the plank off our own eyes. I've been trying for the past couple of posts to be eirinic, and I still get the same responses. Sounds more like a persecutory complex that covers up ignorance of the science.

I've also been shown to be ignorant of the field of detective work. I got burned in that. No longer am I going to use detective work as an analogy. I admit the ignorance. And I won't call that line of work "demonic philosophy" either, although I could cry out how so many were framed for a crime they didnt commit.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 11:10:23 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I see that you are a very intelligent guy, Gebre, and have a great interest in this subject, so I just picked up a copy of Darwin on Trial from the library. I am going to start reading it now... and I promise to try and give it as fair and unbiased a 'shake' as I can.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 11:37:29 AM by stavros_388 »

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

I see that you are a very intelligent guy, Gebre, and have a great interest in this subject, so I just picked up a copy of Darwin on Trial from the library. I am going to start reading it now... and I promise to try and give it as fair and unbiased a 'shake' as I can.

If the author of that book has as much little knowledge of the evolutionary process (even as it's presented by the "atheist scientists" creationists love to demonize) as Seraphim Rose in Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, I think I'll pass.

I see that you are a very intelligent guy, Gebre, and have a great interest in this subject, so I just picked up a copy of Darwin on Trial from the library. I am going to start reading it now... and I promise to try and give it as fair and unbiased a 'shake' as I can.

If the author of that book has as much little knowledge of the evolutionary process (even as it's presented by the "atheist scientists" they demonize) as Seraphim Rose in Creation, Genesis, and Early Man, I think I'll pass.

Or just don't say anything. At least if you want to engage in this discussion, take Gebre seriously and read the book.

Forgive me for the harsh tone, but I don't want anymore "evolutionists are calling us ignorant" excuses

« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 03:18:37 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I see that you are a very intelligent guy, Gebre, and have a great interest in this subject, so I just picked up a copy of Darwin on Trial from the library. I am going to start reading it now... and I promise to try and give it as fair and unbiased a 'shake' as I can.

If the author of that book has as much little knowledge of the evolutionary process (even as it's presented by the "atheist scientists" they demonize) as Seraphim Rose in Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, I think I'll pass.

Or just don't say anything. At least if you want to engage in this discussion, take Gebre seriously and read the book.

You didn't answer my question: Does it contain significantly different arguments from Genesis, Creation, and Early Man? If not, I feel perfectly justified in engaging in this discussion.